As I understand it, mainstream media, in its various incarnations through the ages, has always peddled misinformation the Establishement deemed necessary to keep the masses in line. It has always been a propagands tool of the Establishment. Modern media and AI have supercharged that environment. Social media? That's the Wild West of media. A pamphleteer's paradise. Yeehaar!
Social media has become a blessing and a curse. It’s a blessing in that it allows other sources of news and information than the mainstream media, which appears to be under oligopolistic ownership. The mainstream media tends to only serves up a bland, controlled sensationalist, 24 hour news cycle devoid of any real analysis. Social media is a curse in that it does reinforce our confirmation bias, as we tend to gravitate towards sources that reflect our own values and ideas. The problem is that many genuine, intelligent people are now left in a fog of confusion and doubt about who to believe in the mainstream media and on social media. The result is that this allows many media tricksters, conmen/ conwomen to prosper unchallenged.
One small irony--the opponents of nuclear power have also shifted their lines of attack, as previous ones have been disproven. The difference, of course, is that nuclear power opponent activists have always acted in reasonably good faith, while climate change opponent activists are bought and paid for.
Indeed some anti-nuclear activists like George Monbiot who were mainly focused on safety issues have switched sides to become supporters. And I've gone in the opposite direction, from cautious to strongly opposed.
"Climate change provides a good example. Attempts to convince rightwing denialists using a variety of strategies (factual evidence, clever framing etc) have gone nowhere. But, over time, everyone open to being convinced has come to accept the reality of human-caused climate change. Those promoting misinformation have never admitted error, but have been forced to change tack, shifting from science denial to attacks on clean energy and promotion of nuclear power."
Or the denialists pivot towards something equally dangerous, if not more so: eco-fascism.
I don’t think that the promotion of nuclear power means you are denying climate change. It is a fairly clean technology (in terms of CO2 emissions) and it can be combined with renewable sources to decarbonise in a shorter time period. You make good points on the issue of disinformation. However, I don’t think that most nuclear proponents are deniers of climate change. Some have good ideas on how to decarbonise without hurting the most vulnerable (income).
Some climate change activists are actually now advocating for nuclear combined with renewables to meet these targets faster and more efficiently.
In Australia, nuclear advocates almost invariably climate deniers looking for a fallback position, trying to block renewables. There are a handful of true believers, but not many.
As I understand it, mainstream media, in its various incarnations through the ages, has always peddled misinformation the Establishement deemed necessary to keep the masses in line. It has always been a propagands tool of the Establishment. Modern media and AI have supercharged that environment. Social media? That's the Wild West of media. A pamphleteer's paradise. Yeehaar!
Social media has become a blessing and a curse. It’s a blessing in that it allows other sources of news and information than the mainstream media, which appears to be under oligopolistic ownership. The mainstream media tends to only serves up a bland, controlled sensationalist, 24 hour news cycle devoid of any real analysis. Social media is a curse in that it does reinforce our confirmation bias, as we tend to gravitate towards sources that reflect our own values and ideas. The problem is that many genuine, intelligent people are now left in a fog of confusion and doubt about who to believe in the mainstream media and on social media. The result is that this allows many media tricksters, conmen/ conwomen to prosper unchallenged.
One small irony--the opponents of nuclear power have also shifted their lines of attack, as previous ones have been disproven. The difference, of course, is that nuclear power opponent activists have always acted in reasonably good faith, while climate change opponent activists are bought and paid for.
Indeed some anti-nuclear activists like George Monbiot who were mainly focused on safety issues have switched sides to become supporters. And I've gone in the opposite direction, from cautious to strongly opposed.
https://johnquiggin.com/2010/01/21/nuclear-power-and-australia/
"Climate change provides a good example. Attempts to convince rightwing denialists using a variety of strategies (factual evidence, clever framing etc) have gone nowhere. But, over time, everyone open to being convinced has come to accept the reality of human-caused climate change. Those promoting misinformation have never admitted error, but have been forced to change tack, shifting from science denial to attacks on clean energy and promotion of nuclear power."
Or the denialists pivot towards something equally dangerous, if not more so: eco-fascism.
https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/andreas-malm-interview/
I don’t think that the promotion of nuclear power means you are denying climate change. It is a fairly clean technology (in terms of CO2 emissions) and it can be combined with renewable sources to decarbonise in a shorter time period. You make good points on the issue of disinformation. However, I don’t think that most nuclear proponents are deniers of climate change. Some have good ideas on how to decarbonise without hurting the most vulnerable (income).
Some climate change activists are actually now advocating for nuclear combined with renewables to meet these targets faster and more efficiently.
In Australia, nuclear advocates almost invariably climate deniers looking for a fallback position, trying to block renewables. There are a handful of true believers, but not many.
"but have been forced to change tack, shifting from science denial to attacks on clean energy and promotion of nuclear power.."
How do we get them all the way to advocating taxation of net emissions of CO2 and methane?
Since most are on the political right, I and others thought 30 years ago that selling the market solution to them. would be easy. Sadly, no.